timeline_mandela_catalog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the nature of the content (variants, explanations) but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, moderately long sentence that fronts the key action 'Browse Mandela Effect catalog items'. It includes relevant specifics without wasted words, though it could be slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains what the catalog items are about but does not mention return format, pagination, or how to use the filters. Without an output schema, more detail on the response structure would improve completeness for a tool with 4 parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only motif and query have descriptions). The tool description does not clarify the purpose or effect of the parameters, leaving agents to rely solely on the schema for understanding filtering options.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool browses Mandela Effect catalog items, specifies what content it provides (remembered vs on-record variants, timeline lore explanations, mainstream science explanations), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeline_events or timeline_motif_map.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'browse' hints at exploratory usage, but there is no mention of when to use it instead of timeline_search_reports or timeline_deepen_story.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.